Salisbury Post Online:  Local news, weather, sports and more!
Serving historic Rowan County, North Carolina since 1905.

 BY MATTHEW WINTER
SALISBURY POST

In the end, they got most of it anyway.

Residents attending the City Council meeting Monday night spoke out against a developer’s plans to place 45 double-wide mobile homes on 18 acres off Moose Road.

Council annexed the development anyway.

Other residents argued against a developer’s plan to build 42 houses off Brantley Road at a higher density then currently allowed.

Council approved those plans and annexed that subdivision, as well.

The two annexation issues settled Monday night have cropped up a number of times so far this year:

nCouncil voted 4-2 Monday to annex the proposed mobile home subdivision off Moose Road. Although the Planning Board and city planners approved $4.1-million development, annexation failed to garner enough votes on council last month to pass on first reading.

Maintaining his stance against the annexation, Councilman Phil Meacham voted ‘‘nay’’ Monday night. Meacham criticized the Planning Board’s authority to make final decisions on subdivision approval and chastised his fellow council members for not listening to residents who fear extra traffic and lowered property values.

‘‘The way I look at this thing, if there’s something going on in that neighborhood up there that needs a decision made on it, the thoughts of the people who live up there ought to be taken into consideration,’’ Meacham said.

Council allowed no public comment on the Moose Road annexation Monday; a public hearing on the issue drew overwhelmingly negative remarks last month.

Councilman Robert Misenheimer joined Meacham in his stance against the new neighborhood. He pointed to city planning staff reports that indicate property taxes would not pay for the city services subdivision residents would need. Furthermore, since these homes are manufactured and not site-built, they’ll eventually lose value, he said.

Jack Goodnight argued the more popular argument on council: Since part of the subdivision already lies within the city and the rest likely would benefit from city services anyway, Kannapolis might as well reap some tax revenue.

Besides, he pointed out, the developer has said he’ll put the homes there with or without city annexation.

‘‘If we could vote against it and it not happen, then I’d be with you,’’ Goodnight said.

nCouncil also voted to annex 14 acres of the Brantley Road subdivision, which also failed last month on first reading. Once again, Meacham stood against it and delivered a petition with 110 opponents’ signatures.

Misenheimer, however, did not join him in voting against this annexation. He asked council to excuse him from the vote because his wife, Bernie, and her sisters own the property.

A developer wants to buy the tract – the annexation area plus some land already in the city – to build 74 homes on mostly 10,000-square-foot lots. The developer needs annexation – and a city rezoning that would allow higher density – to make the desired profit, according to city staff reports.

Brenda Bost, who lives on Brantley Road and circulated the petition against the development, asked council to restrict the builder to one-acre or half-acre lots. Bost argued that the development would ruin wildlife habitat and spoil the rural setting along Brantley Road.

Builder Danny Bost of Concord disputed this claim and pointed out that watershed restrictions will keep him from covering more than 24 percent of any lot with buildings, driveways and roads.

Bost also questioned the validity of the petition delivered to Meacham.

Council voted 5-1 to annex the subdivision and 5-1 to rezone it, with Meacham voting against both motions.

City Council members followed popular opinion on only one housing issue: They unanimously rejected a developer’s plan to convert a vacant commercial building at the heart of the Centerview neighborhood into apartments.

City officials and residents will address the future of this and other vacant commercial buildings in Centerview next month.

Earlier this month, the Planning Board rejected rezoning the building at Old Centergrove Road and East D Street. The board recommended council deny this request because the building would not provide enough landscaping and space for children to play.

Debate over this building’s future has sparked efforts from city staff and private developers to reinvigorate the Centerview neighborhood. The area suffered commercially once the state completed Loop Road in the mid-80s, routing traffic away from Centerview.

City Planner Michael Legg warned council that a rezoning in the area would be ‘‘disastrous’’ without broader plans.

A number of citizens also spoke out against the rezoning and urged council to take more comprehensive steps toward preserving the historic neighborhood.

Doug Smith, for example, grew up in the Centerview neighborhood and argued Monday night that allowing apartments in its commercial center would spoil the neighborhood’s unique appeal.

‘‘We’ve torn up everything in this city that’s ever meant anything historically,’’ he said.

Real estate agent Phil Lippard, who represents the building’s owner, argued that without the rezoning, the building will never sell ‘‘to a better-type business that someone would like to live across from.’’

‘‘Some people are not ready to give up on Centerview,’’ he added. ‘‘Some people think there’s a little bit of business left in Centerview.’’

City officials will hold ‘‘brainstorming sessions’’ on revitalizing Centerview June 9 through June 11. For more information, call the city offices at 938-5133.

In other business Monday, council voted 6-1, with Meacham opposing, to pitch in $37,500 for a new railroad depot and platform between Main Street and the North Carolina Railroad near West B Street.

The city’s appropriation would follow a $75,000 grant from the Cannon Foundation for the depot. The state budgeted approximately $2.4 million for the project.

A 4-1 vote on the issue at the April 26 council meeting failed because the law requires a two-thirds majority on council for a budget ordinance. Meacham voted against the proposal, citing low ridership on passenger trains.

Hales said Monday the city shouldn’t have to pay any more money for the depot. The state recently finished construction plans for the platform section and crews could finish the platform in the fall, he said.